OBJECTIVES: Systematic reviews (SRs) provide a comprehensive synthesis of data available, while rapid reviews (RRs) aim to deliver timely yet robust evidence summaries. This study compares approaches to RRs on health economic models, evaluating their comprehensiveness and time efficiency.

METHODS: The study evaluated four different methodologies. Three of them were selected based on the Delphi consensus of experts assessing those as the most feasible, most timely, and most comprehensive ones. Approach 1 involved a search of two major databases (Medline and Embase), with a single studies selection. Data extraction and risk of bias were performed and quality-checked by two reviewers. Approach 2 was based on the update of the previous SRs with single study selection and data extraction; the risk of bias was not assessed. Approach 3 extended Approach 1 by reviewing HTA agencies websites. In approach 4 we used methodology from Approach 1 with the support of an Artificial Intelligence tool during the studies selection process; moreover, lists of references from SRs were reviewed. Study selection and data extraction were quality-checked. One person conducted a risk of bias assessment.

RESULTS: Approach 3 was the most comprehensive one (100% of models identified), but was the second one in terms of the time required for completion. Approach 1 was the most time-consuming, identifying about 95% of models. Approach 2 was the most time-saving solution but covered only about half of the publications. Approach 4 was highly comprehensive (about 97%), and time-saving in comparison to Approaches 1 and 3.

CONCLUSIONS: For a quick overview, an update of the previous SR seems to be optimal, though it has limitations in comprehensiveness. For a thorough investigation, the methodology should be adjusted accordingly. Consideration of the RR's purpose is crucial before implementing the appropriate methodology.